New iMac 27" Processors

george-brooks

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 31, 2011
732
16
Brooklyn, NY
I notice that the maximum option for the new 27" is a 3.4 GHz quad core i7, which was the same max option on the old model. Obviously the slower processor options have received a bit of a bump, but is this specific option the same as the old gen, or is it a newer generation 3.4 i7?
 

Black Diesel

macrumors regular
Mar 15, 2011
183
28
exactly what I'm wondering, what is the performance gain of the new iMac if it's using the same 3.4ghz quad core other than that fusuion drive? It can't be much right?
 

george-brooks

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 31, 2011
732
16
Brooklyn, NY
Specs for the 2600 from the old model say turbo boost up to 3.8 Ghz, whereas apple's specs for the new processor say turbo boost up to 3.9 GHz, so probably a new processor? Sounds like it may be a 3770, which would indeed be an upgrade.
 

leman

macrumors G4
Oct 14, 2008
10,394
4,908
exactly what I'm wondering, what is the performance gain of the new iMac if it's using the same 3.4ghz quad core other than that fusuion drive? It can't be much right?
The old model max CPU was i7-2600, the new one is i7-3770. The performance gain in CPU-intensive applications is around 10%. The new CPU consumes less power though and thus generates less heat.
 

george-brooks

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 31, 2011
732
16
Brooklyn, NY
The old model max CPU was i7-2600, the new one is i7-3770. The performance gain in CPU-intensive applications is around 10%. The new CPU consumes less power though and thus generates less heat.
Excellent, my hypothesis is proven correct!
Thanks for the answer
 

karpich1

macrumors regular
Dec 18, 2007
170
0
Well, from what I recall, the jump from Sandy to Ivy was supposed to give a near-negligible performance bump with non-overclocked CPUs. Like 10% or something.

So I guess that can account for something.


Really, the only BIG thing holding back iMacs are the GPUs. And with a high-end 27" you're doing a lot better in that department with the 2012's over the 2011's. So overall gaming+CAD performance will go up.

And I guess Hybrid/Fusion drives might be faster than the *average* (non-BTO) HDDs in the 2011's thus giving another minor boost.
 

george-brooks

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 31, 2011
732
16
Brooklyn, NY
Most of the geekbench results for the iMac 13,2 say it is using either a 3770 or 3770k, and all of them are saying it is clocked at 3.5 GHz, is this the case?

Edit: Intel's literature also states 3.5 GHz for the 3770. Is this a typo on apple.com?
 

leman

macrumors G4
Oct 14, 2008
10,394
4,908
Most of the geekbench results for the iMac 13,2 say it is using either a 3770 or 3770k, and all of them are saying it is clocked at 3.5 GHz, is this the case?

Edit: Intel's literature also states 3.5 GHz for the 3770. Is this a typo on apple.com?
3770 is 3.4ghz. You are looking at the k version.

----------

Okay, so you're basically saying that I would get an approx 10% peformance gain from the new iMac likely to be close to 3K compared to this 2011 refurb?

http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0M73LL/A
For CPU-intensive task, yes. For most of the tasks you won't notice a difference. Sorry if you are disappointed but faster CPUs simply do not exists :)

On the other hand, the GPU difference is massive.
 

Black Diesel

macrumors regular
Mar 15, 2011
183
28
3770 is 3.4ghz. You are looking at the k version.

----------



For CPU-intensive task, yes. For most of the tasks you won't notice a difference. Sorry if you are disappointed but faster CPUs simply do not exists :)

On the other hand, the GPU difference is massive.

Okay, but I'm not gaming, just Lightroom and FCP so not sure I need the extra GPU. I probably won't notice the difference from the max'd out 3.4ghz 2011 to the 3.4ghz 2012 right?
 

george-brooks

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 31, 2011
732
16
Brooklyn, NY
3770 is 3.4ghz. You are looking at the k version.

----------



For CPU-intensive task, yes. For most of the tasks you won't notice a difference. Sorry if you are disappointed but faster CPUs simply do not exists :)

On the other hand, the GPU difference is massive.
So are these machines in the geekbench results with 3770k's internal test models?

Are there any other differences aside from speed between the 3770 and 3770k?

----------

Okay, but I'm not gaming, just Lightroom and FCP so not sure I need the extra GPU. I probably won't notice the difference from the max'd out 3.4ghz 2011 to the 3.4ghz 2012 right?
You may notice a difference in Lightroom if you're performing really processor intensive tasks, i.e. a large scale DNG conversion or big export.

FCP X might see a slight difference, but FCP 7 will likely not as it is 32 bit and doesn't even take advantage of the i7 in the first place.
 

leman

macrumors G4
Oct 14, 2008
10,394
4,908
So are these machines in the geekbench results with 3770k's internal test models?

Are there any other differences aside from speed between the 3770 and 3770k?
The machines you are talking about are most likely hackintoshes. The basic difference between a k and a non-k version is that k has an unlocked multiplier, so it is oriented at gamers/overclockers.
 

Similar threads

  • Pinkly Smooth
3
Replies
3
Views
0
  • gibelma
0
Replies
0
Views
44
  • VJNeumann
4
Replies
4
Views
252
  • Jimbo_Mac
16
Replies
16
Views
854
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.